View full case

PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO DELA CRUZ

FACTS:

Jonalyn Yumang filed two separate rape complaints against Bienvenido Dela Cruz, alleging that he had raped her on July 3 and 4, 1996. One of the complaints, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1275-M-96, stated that Bienvenido had carnal knowledge of Jonalyn, a mentally deficient person, against her will and without her consent. Bienvenido pleaded not guilty to the charges and the cases were consolidated for joint trial. During the trial, the prosecution sought to have Jonalyn undergo a psychiatric examination to determine her mental and psychological capability to testify in court. The trial court allowed the examination and a doctor confirmed that Jonalyn had a moderate level of mental retardation. Jonalyn testified that Bienvenido had raped her twice inside a house. A medico-legal officer also testified that Jonalyn's physical examination revealed signs of sexual abuse. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, which was granted. The defense argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the cases and that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove Bienvenido's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The case involves the conviction of the accused, Bienvenido, for the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 1275-M-96 and his acquittal in Criminal Case No. 1274-M-96 for insufficiency of evidence. The victim, Jonalyn, who had a mental deficiency or abnormality, signed the complaint against Bienvenido, but the defense argues that she lacked the capacity to do so. The defense also questions Jonalyn's competency as a witness, claiming that her testimony was coached and rehearsed, and that she was asked leading questions that were fed legal and factual conclusions by the prosecution. The trial court denied Bienvenido's demurrer to evidence and eventually considered the case submitted for decision. In its joint decision, the trial court convicted Bienvenido in Criminal Case No. 1275-M-96 and acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 1274-M-96.

Bienvenido appeals the conviction, asserting various errors committed by the trial court, including jurisdictional issues, Jonalyn's competency as a witness, and inconsistencies in the court's rulings. The Office of the Solicitor General counters the defense arguments, asserting that the trial court had jurisdiction over the case, Jonalyn was competent to initiate the prosecution and testify in court, and her testimony was corroborated by medical and physical evidence.

In addition to the criminal case, the OSG is also seeking an award of P50,000 in moral damages for Jonalyn. The OSG also requests a reduction of the civil indemnity to P50,000 to align with current jurisprudence.

ISSUES:

  1. Validity of the Complaint for Rape

  2. Competence of JONALYN to Testify

  3. Competence of JONALYN to testify

  4. Credibility of JONALYN as a witness

  5. Propriety of propounding leading questions to JONALYN

  6. Whether it was proper for the trial court to allow leading questions to be propounded to the witness

  7. Whether the behavior of the witness indicates coaching

  8. Whether the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape

RULING:

  1. Validity of the Complaint for Rape

  2. The court agrees that the trial court validly took cognizance of the complaint filed by JONALYN. The laws existing at the time the crimes were committed, Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, require a complaint from the offended party or her relatives in crimes against chastity. In this case, JONALYN as the offended party had the right to initiate the prosecution independently, and her complaint complied with the legal requirements.

  3. Competence of JONALYN to Testify

  4. JONALYN's mental retardation does not render her incompetent to initiate the prosecution and testify in court. Minors are allowed to initiate the prosecution and testify regarding offenses under the law. JONALYN, who had the mentality of an 8-year-old, was competent to sign the criminal complaint and testify as a witness in court. Her competency as a witness was proven when she was able to answer questions asked of her in court. Additionally, her testimony was corroborated by medical and physical evidence.

  5. The determination of the competence of witnesses to testify rests primarily with the trial judge who sees them in the witness stand and observes their behavior or their possession or lack of intelligence, as well as their understanding of the obligation of an oath. In this case, JONALYN's competency has been established by the testimony of a medical expert. Even though she may be considered as a mental retardate, she is still a competent witness under Section 20 of Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence.

  6. JONALYN's credibility as a witness has been established. Considering her feeble mind, she could not have fabricated or concocted the charge against the accused. Additionally, no improper motive has been shown by the defense as to why JONALYN would file a case or falsely testify against the accused. A rape victim's testimony is considered credible where she has no motive to incriminate the accused and has willingly submitted to a medical examination.

  7. The trial court did not err in allowing leading questions to be propounded to JONALYN. Her testimony should be understood and taken from the viewpoint of an 8-year-old child. The prosecution's use of leading questions was necessary to draw out the basic details of the crime committed against her.

  8. The trial court did not err in allowing leading questions to be propounded to the witness. Leading questions are usually allowed when the witness is immature, aged and infirm, uneducated, ignorant of court proceedings, or lacking in comprehension. In this case, the witness exhibited behavior that warranted the use of leading questions.

  9. The behavior of the witness, such as constantly looking towards her aunt and mother, does not indicate coaching. There is a dearth of other evidentiary bases to show that the witness was coached.

  10. The lone testimony of the witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape. Medical and physical evidence also corroborated the witness's testimony. The laceration of the hymen is considered irrefutable evidence of forcible defloration.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of the competence of witnesses to testify rests primarily with the trial judge who observes their behavior and understanding of an oath.

  • A mental retardate is not disqualified from being a witness as long as they have the ability to make their perceptions known to others.

  • The credibility of a witness is strengthened when they have no motive to incriminate the accused.

  • No woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of rape and subject herself to a public trial unless motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.

  • The trial court's evaluation of witness testimonies is accorded the highest respect as they have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and determine their truthfulness.

  • Leading questions may be necessary and indispensable in the interest of justice, especially when dealing with child witnesses.

  • Leading questions may be allowed when the witness is immature, aged and infirm, uneducated, ignorant of court proceedings, or lacking in comprehension.

  • Behavior of a witness, such as looking towards family members, does not necessarily indicate coaching.

  • The laceration of the hymen is considered irrefutable evidence of forcible defloration.